Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till. Abstract. The paper ..... Andrew Rabeneck, David Sheppard & Peter Town, 'Housing Flexibility?' AD, 11 (1973),. 698-727 (p.
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till
Abstract The paper 'The Opportunities of Flexible Housing' addresses today's need for buildings that can adapt to change over time. By discussing ideology, participation, use, technology, and finance as parameters for flexible housing, this paper also investigates reasons for current non-implementation and obstacles as inherent to the UK housing market, before concluding with the suggestion that flexible housing is inherently sustainable.
Introduction1 This is the first of two papers that investigates flexible housing, i.e. housing that is designed for choice at the design stage, both in terms of social use and construction, or change over its lifetime. The paper shall look at the 'why' of flexible housing: why architects, planners and housing providers design, or should design, buildings that can be, in part or entirely, flexible and provide scope for adaptation, why flexibility is important.2 By focusing on the British housing market, the paper argues for the socio-demographic as well as economic need for the adaptability of buildings by establishing that flexibility is inextricably linked to sustainability and stability in communities. It will highlight some of the wider issues of housing such as questions around density, the provision and distribution of facilities within the wider context of an area or community, space standards, and the transformation of housing into a commodity, as well as obstacles to the notion of flexible housing.
1
This paper is based on a research project based at the University of Sheffield entitled “The Past, Present and Future of Flexible Housing”, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
2
The category 'flexible' includes the category 'adaptable'. The term 'adaptable' is used only if specific to a certain condition, whereas generally it is taken as a subset of the category of flexibility. Flexibility does not refer specifically to notions of mobility and moving, but includes issues surrounding social opportunities in housing.
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING The principal hypothesis of this research, however, is the idea that in order to be socially, economically and environmentally viable, housing needs to be capable of responding to changing, and often uncertain, demographics, both at a macro and a micro level. The argument is set against, and opposed to, the rather cynical approaches of the British private house building sector who predominately see in-built flexibility or adaptability as a hindrance to selling new and ever more houses,. The paper puts forward an argument for designing out inflexibility; this extends the currently promoted idea of 'Lifetime Homes'3 (housing that can be adapted to the needs of families with young children through to frail older people and those with temporary and permanent disabilities) to include considerations about the thoughtful disposition of rooms and access to them, size of and relationships between individual spaces, and the quality of and the way in which buildings and their interiors are constructed.
What is flexible housing? Flexible housing means housing that can adapt to the changing needs of users. This implies that for housing to be flexible a number of principles should be addressed. First, at the level of the building there should be flexibility between units, even to the extent of allowing change of use from residential. Second, individual units should be equipped, spatially as well as technically to be linkable or easily detachable, both vertically as well as horizontally, to allow for expansion or reduction of unit size. Thirdly, the interior layout of a unit either has to be adjustable to allow for different patterns of use (at the time of occupation, but also during occupation) or has to be designed in a way that does not predetermine its use. In order to determine the elements and components that make housing schemes either implicitly or explicitly flexible, around one hundred and fifty developments — predominately twentieth century European examples, but ranging in scale from single detached pavilion-like structures to multi-storey apartment blocks — have been examined in our research study. The focus has been on elements such as structure, building systems, services, zoning, use and modular components and the effectiveness 3
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Lifetime Homes [accessed: 28 April 2005]. All housing built after October 1999 has to fulfil Part M regulations, which cover accessibility, Lifetime Homes features, and built-in flexibility that make homes easy to adapt as peoples' lives change.
2
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING with which these were implemented, both socially as well as technically. Although ideology, i.e. a strong belief in modernity and progress, technicism, participation, or sustainability, plays an important role in many projects, the two main categories within which projects are discussed here are concerned with 'use', describing strategies employed in pre-occupation, occupation and post-occupation scenarios, and 'technology', which deals with strategies relating to construction as well as services. 'Use' refers to flexibility as contained within the plan. This can be achieved in one of two, apparently contrasting, ways. First, through the notion of indeterminacy, so that a given space has the potential of accommodating different uses and user groups (use neutrality), for
example This can be realized through a number of equally
dimensioned spaces whose uses are not predefined, and by the positioning of walls and service cores so that they can be changed from one scenario to another. Second, through the notion of determinacy: spaces are designed to have the potential to be changed through movable walls, foldable furniture or component systems.4 'Technology', on the other hand, deals with issues that are either related to specific construction methods and techniques ranging from cross wall construction to the separation between load bearing and non-load bearing elements, or service strategies for a building, i.e. a system designed to allow ease of maintenance and exchangeability of redundant elements, which can either be achieved through maximum bundling of services within one core or a completely decentralised provision that allows a number of service outlet positions within the same unit. These two categories, supported by a number of elements ranging from considerations on a macro, building, unit, and right down to the micro level of internal building components, provide the objective basis for the analysis of a building's ability to accommodate change. The extent to which this is possible is determined by the level of in-built opportunity for adaptability, taken to mean "capable of different social uses", or flexibility, "capable of different physical arrangements."5 If flexibility or the designing out of inflexibility needs additional up-front investment, 4
These issues and those of technology are explored further in Jeremy Till’s paper 'Flexible Housing : The Means to the End' which is being presented in the workshop 'Physical Aspects of Design and Regeneration'.
5
Steven Groák, The Idea of Building : Thought and action in the design and production of buildings (London, Glasgow, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras: E & FN Spon, 1992), p. 15.
3
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING these costs have to be set off against long-term economic calculations such as a higher appreciation of the dwellings on the part of the user, less occupant fluctuation, and the ability to react quickly to changing needs or wants of the existing or potential inhabitants and the market. Henz, for example, suggests that incremental costs can often already be counteracted through the selection of an overall simple building volume and equally simple but complementable and retrofittable finishing.6 The tendency to design buildings that only correspond to a specific type of household, such as the nuclear family or the young professional, at a specific point in time and its present needs, reflects a way of thinking that doesn't surpass short term economic profit. Instead, one should accept the fact, as Henz points out, that neither can the need for housing at any point in time be predicted correctly, nor the precise amount of units required, their precise location, size and required or wanted finishing.7 Housing developments that incorporate long term social considerations, such as a dwelling's potential to be subdivided into two units, or two units or parts of units to be interconnected in order to form a new entity, are therefore inherently linked to ongoing economic but also environmental issues. The ability for a building to accommodate change over several generations of inhabitants is above all important for the public house building sector, where flexibility in terms of use — i.e. the ability to change the use of rooms, configuration of rooms and their subdivision — provides a level of choice, for housing associations or local authorities as much as for the tenants themselves, which is otherwise non-existent in this sector. Buildings should therefore be designed and be specifically constructed to have the capability to accommodate change on the level of types of usage as well as groups of users.
What are the issues that flexibility addresses? The notion of flexibility responds to future uncertainty in a built and natural environment that can neither environmentally nor socially afford to construct buildings as disposable commodities. This wider intent is achieved by considering flexibility under ideological, financial, participatory, sustainable, technological and use issues. The idea of housing capable of accommodating change has been subject of numerous 6
Alexander Henz & Hannes Henz, Anpassbare Wohnungen (Zürich: ETH Wohnforum, 1997), p. 4.
7
Henz & Henz, p. 4.
4
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING tenants / architects / clients initiatives, architectural competitions, research projects, magazines / journals, and government reports throughout the twentieth century.8 Many debates and discourses with the notion of flexibility at their very centre, typically generate as many proponents as opponents. Flexibility has been attacked as propagating a "false neutrality"9; it often is considered an ideological myth or questioned as being merely an architectural toy such as in Jia Beisi's essay on 'Adaptable Housing or Adaptable People?'10. In addition, it is seen as having no real relevance outside the realm of one-off experimental projects or indeed as having the potential for going against the needs of users and playing into the hands of "exploiters".11 In the early 1980s, James Stirling declared that he was "sick and tired of the boring, meaningless, non-committed, faceless flexibility and open-endedness of the present architecture."12 However, if flexibility is taken to mean more than endless change without fixed determinants, the notion of flexibility is capable of addressing a number of prevailing conditions in the field of housing. Ideology Ideology can most likely be considered as one of the dominant drivers for flexibility or the development of the notion of change in housing in the twentieth century. Whilst on the one hand the fetishisation of technology and a rather unreflected, even uncritical, adoption of for example industrial prefabrication or a fixation with moveable systems has changed the way in which such motivations have been evaluated, on the other hand, it was also the strong belief of modernism in the 8
For example: 'Das wachsende Haus' - competition, Germany (1932); 'The new house 194X' - Architectural Forum, USA (1942); 'Homes for today and tomorrow' - government report, UK (1961); SAR - Founding of a research institute under Habraken, Netherlands (1961); 'Flexibler Wohnungsgrundriß' - competition, Germany (1971); 'Wohnen Morgen' competition, Austria (1971); 'Fleksible boliger’ - competition, Denmark (1986, 1990/91); 'Accommodating Change' - competition, UK (2002).
9
Aldo van Eyck (1962) quoted in Adrian Forty, Words and buildings : a vocabulary of modern architecture (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000), p. 142.
10
Jia Beisi, 'Adaptable Housing or Adaptable People?' Architecture et comportement / Architecture and Behaviour, 2 (1995), 139-62 (p. 139).
11
Maureen Taylor, 'User needs or exploiter needs', AD, 11 (1973), 728-32 (p. 728).
12
James Stirling (1984) quoted in Forty, p. 143. The quote refers to his design for the Stuttgarter Staatsgalerie, but is symptomatic for a widespread dismay with a discussion that became very much focused on concepts too abstract and not capable of solving the dilemma between occupants' wish for flexibility in certain areas and that of fixation in others.
5
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING empowerment of the user and the acknowledgement of different models of habitation that challenged existing preconceptions of how to live. Flexibility as an ideology, in particular in the 1920s, questioned existing patterns of living and approached the building as well as the individual residential unit as something that could change over time, something that could adapt to the wishes of their inhabitants. In this sense, because flexible housing has the potential to encourage users to express themselves and their concept of living, because it accepts that society — on a macro and down to a micro scale — is not a static model but understands change as a precondition, it promotes progressiveness rather than stagnation. Flexibility liberates the user from a notion of housing that is principally conceived as a commodity and potentiates the realisation of individual concerns. It gives occupants the choice of how they want to use spaces instead of architecturally predetermining their lives, or, in the words of the French architect Arsène-Henri "to provide a private domain that will fulfil each occupant's expectations" that is not about allegedly 'good' or 'correct' layouts but dayto-day use.13 Participation The notion of empowerment is also a central feature of participatory design processes. Buildings that are conceived in such a way that allows for adaptation both at design and at a later stage, invite user involvement. Because flexibility is also a matter of knowledge and management, by incorporating users into the entire process and by placing concrete decisions into their hands, buildings and units can respond more directly to changing needs. Use Closely linked to the category of participation, flexible design in terms of actual use, gives the occupant control over their environment during occupation.14 It gives a housing association the potential to change a residential unit according to the needs of new occupants. Use flexibility addresses the need for housing to adapt to different usage over time, which includes life as well as work patterns. This can be achieved 13
Andrew Rabeneck, David Sheppard & Peter Town, 'Housing Flexibility?' AD, 11 (1973), 698-727 (p. 701).
14
See D. Levitt, 'What type of home? sustainable housing requires buildings to be adaptable', AXIS -LONDON- ROOM-, 6 (2000), 12-13 (pp. 12-13). Levitt argues that sustainable housing requires buildings to be adaptable to suit changing needs and wishes, particular of the occupants.
6
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING either through a technical or a spatial approach, whereby the former provides moveable or easily changeable walls within a unit that is technically equipped for change (heating system, water and electrical circuits are room unspecific), and the latter offers a series of equally sized spaces that are open for interpretation. Technology A certain logic of construction, provision of services and materiality implies a certain logic of flexibility, which in turn enables flexible use and occupation. Many of the more emphatic examples of flexible housing have a formal clarity with a distinction between elements that are fixed and those that are open to change and variation. The adoption of a clear constructional system, a separate technical / service system and a distinct interior finishes system facilitates ease of maintenance and upgrading of individual items with little disruption to the entirety of the building. Finance Flexibility is more economic in the long term because obsolescence of housing stock is limited. If technological systems, service strategies and spatial principles are employed that enable the flexible use of a building, these buildings in turn will last longer, and they will be cheaper in the long run because they reduce the need and frequency for wholesale refurbishment. Sustainability Flexibility is therefore ultimately tied into a sustainable social, environmental and economic imperative. Flexible housing, with the emphasis on technology (structure and services) and use, provides space for a degree of uncertainty in relation to the development of demographics, social relationships and technological progress. By acknowledging change as an underlying parameter but accepting the level and extent of change as unknown, flexibility is about the designing out of obsolescence and the future proofing of our buildings.
The Lost Opportunity The arguments for the incorporation of flexibility into housing are thus quite compelling. It is strange therefore that its uptake, particularly in the UK, is almost non-
7
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING existent. This section thus covers some of the reasons for this lost opportunity, with an emphasis on the UK context.15 The apparent lack of commitment to flexible housing is despite a seminal report, entitled 'Homes for Today and Tomorrow' commissioned and published in 1961 under a Conservative government and generally known as the 'Parker Morris Report', which even then argued that "with the greatly increased rate of social and economic change, the adaptable house is becoming a national necessity. Not only would it be valuable for the family staying in one house for most of its life: it would allow much easier and perhaps more satisfactory adaptation to the changing general needs."16 Nothing much has happened in the intervening forty years. However, considerations of flexibility in housing have again become topics not only of professional architectural or academic discourse, but very much so for the public and to a small, but increasing extent, the private sector. A joint initiative between CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) and the RIBA (Royal Incorporation of British Architects), for example, which is called 'Housing Futures 2024 : A provocative Look at Future Trends in Housing', regards "Culture, Flexibility and Choice" as one of the key emerging themes over the next twenty years, stating that "the nature of the individual households is forecast to continue changing. Viewed in tandem with the diverse modes of living, working and leisure time, it can be seen that our future housing needs to be flexible."17 Consumer Choice? The change of emphasis may be put down to a number of factors. Over the past years, starting with the introduction of the 'Lifetime Homes' standards in 1999 and the publication of the UK Government's 'Sustainable Communities Plan' in 2003 public awareness on issues such as flexibility and sustainability, although belatedly compared to other European countries, increased immensely; this is complemented by a growing demand for more consumer choice in housing.18
15
This does not include a large number of buildings, such as Victorian, Georgian or Edwardian town houses and terraces or early industrial buildings that have proved to be both adaptable and flexible over time.
16
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Homes for today & tomorrow (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961), p. 9.
17
CABE & RIBA, Housing Futures 2024 : A Provocative Look at Future Trends in Housing (London: Building Futures, 2004), pp. 14-15.
18
'Consumer Choice', one of the buzz-words of recent years, stretches from areas such as the National Health Service to education, but also includes housing.
8
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING The growing demand for consumer choice, however, is set against the background of around 170,000 new residential units being built per year in England, but with an actual need for around 250,000 units annually in the south of England alone for the next decade.19 As demand exceeds supply, and will continue to do so according to projections until 2016, the UK is moving towards a society facing increasing problems of "homelessness, affordability and social division, [and] decline in standards of public service delivery."20 Having invested, between 1985 and 1996, an average of 3.5% as percentage of GDP in housing — against 6.3% in Germany, 5.9% in Canada or 5% in Australia and France — combined with low levels of output of new housing when compared internationally, means that at current rates of replacement, as Barker suggests, a new house built today would need to last around 1,200 years.21 The fundamental problems of undersupply in housing cannot of course be addressed by architectural solutions of in-built flexibility. These issues have to be dealt with on a legislative level, they have to be policy driven. A sudden turn towards over supply in the housing market can hardly be expected as selling prices would have to fall were supply to outstrip demand. Opposition against the development of brown- as well as greenfield sites is also mounting from adjacent residents who fear that their property value might decline should supply in their specific area rise. Housing is increasingly regarded as an investment and has become an integral part of people's pension plans with a small but growing proportion of home-owners expecting to rely on a property as their main source of income.22 During our research interviews, people within the UK private volume house building industry often noted that if flexibility cannot be shown to offer economic benefits in terms of added value they would not even go to the trouble of looking into the topic; research as such is not on their agenda. At the moment still, the prevalent attitude is that, commercially, house builders do not need to offer a customer anything beyond
19
David Blackman, 'Housing : The ever-changing demand and requirements for housing mean that providing flexible, desirable dwellings is a major challenge for the future', Amanda Birch & Robert Booth, Building Futures : A Building Design Supplement for CABE and RIBA (London: Tony Arnold, 2003), 22-26 (p. 23).
20
Kate Barker, Review of Housing Supply. Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2004), p. 1.
21
Barker, p. 128.
22
Council of Mortgage Lenders, Pensions : Challenges and Choices, Response by the Council of Mortgage Lenders to the Pensions Commission [accessed 3 May 2005]
9
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING immediate desires and needs: if the first person in the queue doesn't buy the house, the second person will. First and foremost volume house builders are businesses that are responsible to their shareholders and that reflects how they are run.23 Housing as a Commodity versus Public Housing Provision However, housing that is regarded almost as a disposable commodity with the implicit suggestion that people just move on to the next property when their personal circumstances change runs contrary to the fact that houses are one of a country's most important assets. The Parker Morris Report recognised this by stating that houses are "assets which must be built to a standard at which they are likely to give reasonable satisfaction, and therefore hold their value, over the years."24 Certainly other countries have been acknowledging this not least through the higher percentage of GDP invested in housing; there are signs that even in the UK things are changing. In the private sector, on the one hand, this change is going to materialise through better informed customers exercising their — means enabled — choice. Focussing on customer needs / wants and offering choice is one point of advice given, for example, by the UK Design Council who suggest that the best way to make sure customers buy the industry's products and services is to "give them exactly what they want. Companies need to take a step back from their offering and try to put themselves in the shoes of their customers. Observing people carefully and analysing how they live their everyday lives needs to be central to the design process."25 Because at the moment customers don't believe they are offered real choice when buying a new house or flat (choice typically comes down to choosing the colour of the carpet or the frontages for kitchen cabinets), some of the volume house builders have moved into what is still a niche market by offering alternative layouts within the same shell, i.e. occupants can select their preferred option from an offer of 'loft', '1-bed' or '2-bed' unit. This form of pre-occupation 'choice', however, comes with a price attached (in
23
This is not to say that the decisions of architects and planners were or are never informed by economic concerns, but that the economic structure of many volume house builders provides difficulties in promoting long term approaches. However, in particular amongst architects, the terminology of flexibility is often used as a 'gimmick' or rhetoric, often resulting in extremely user unfriendly, technically demanding solutions that have not much in common with flexibility as promoted within this research.
24
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, pp. 5-6.
25
Design Council, Competitive Advantage through Design (London: Design Council, March 2002), p. 23.
10
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING some cases a premium of 30% compared to other similar sized properties in the same area). In the public sector, on the other hand, flexibility offers people who do not have much choice the possibility to remain were they are, resulting in a lower turnover of tenants and less need for relocation, which promotes stability and consistency within existing communities. Contrary to the private sector where people can exercise choice by either moving to a new house that is more suitable to their current needs or by buying a house / flat that offers flexibility from the outset but is much more expensive, people renting from a social landlord typically cannot just move somewhere else if a present social situation changes. Flexibility furthermore allows housing providers to accommodate the emerging different demographic patterns without having to build specific building types. Most present spatial configurations limit flexibility as layouts are intrinsically in-flexible, i.e. usage of specific spaces is predetermined and dimensions of rooms are linked to funding mechanisms, or cannot be adapted by, for example, removing or adding a partition wall or rearranging the internal distribution of spaces. Although the Housing Corporation, which is responsible for investing public money in housing associations and through regulation is seeking "to ensure that people will want, and be able, to live in these homes, now and in the future"26, lists under 'recommended items', section 1.6.4 of the Scheme Development Standards, that dwellings should be designed to facilitate future internal re-modelling by full span floor construction, non load-bearing internal walls, floor / ceiling space service runs, the possibility of later loft conversions, and to facilitate the subsequent provision of a side or rear extension, it comes at the very end of a long list of essential items housing associations need to fulfil in order to receive grants, with 'recommended' suggesting that it is not necessary.27 Another crucial point with public sector housing is the 30-year cycle of maintenance and upgrading of technical systems (ranging from new kitchens to wiring and heating). Maintenance of existing housing stock is no longer grant assisted in the UK. Whereas a number of years ago social landlords could get grants for improvement, today long term maintenance of properties has to come out of income and a 'setting and sinking fund' for each scheme. Although this implies that buildings that can be easily adapted
26
Housing Corporation, About Us [accessed 5 May 2005]
27
Housing Corporation, Scheme Development Standards (London: Housing Corporation, 2003), p. 24.
11
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING over time would reduce the running cost to a housing association or other public landlord, whole life costing or the "systematic consideration of all relevant costs and revenues associated with the acquisition and ownership of an asset", is seldom taken fully into consideration.28 Whole Life Costing What becomes apparent therefore is that one of the obstacles to flexible housing is the present short-term funding regime in the UK which is generally concentrated on point of sale (in the private sector) or occupation (in the social sector). Against this, by acknowledging the mistakes that have been made in the past such as decisions on lowest price instead of long-term value and sustainability for the nation's housing stock, a working group of the Housing Forum (part of Constructing Excellence, funded by the Department for Trade and Industry) recently published a report entitled '20 steps to encourage the use of Whole Life Costing', intended to "encourage those housing organisations that have not yet considered the importance and value of using Whole Life Costing as a mechanism for achieving enhanced value and performance in the delivery of a housing product either for rent or for sale."29 This is supported by calculations for the typical cost for owning a building, which are in the ratio of 1 for construction cost, 5 for maintenance costs, and 200 for building operating costs.30 The reality, however, looks somewhat gloomy, and suggests much space for improvement in particular when it comes to assessing the long-term viability of design factors in house and flat plans. A survey undertaken for the above report found that although 52% of respondents were engaged in whole life costing either on all their stock (76%) or on certain new build development projects (24%), only 39% actually analysed maintenance costs and life cycle replacement costs, and only 36% of respondents undertook such an analysis at project design stage to inform future investment.31
28
BRE, Whole Life Costing [accessed 4 May 2005]. Future costs include all operating costs, such as rent, rates, cleaning, inspection, maintenance, repair, replacements / renewals, energy and utilities use, dismantling, disposal, security and management over the life of the built asset.
29
The Housing Forum, Rethinking Construction : 20 steps to encourage the use of Whole Life Costing (London: The Housing Forum, 2002), p. 3.
30
The Housing Forum, p. 5. Figures published by the Royal Academy of Engineering.
31
The Housing Forum, p. 4.
12
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING Overall, the increasing importance of whole life costing in the public sector on the one hand and a different but also a fervent environmentally, socially and ethically led approach of at least some of the private volume house builders on the other hand, are inextricably linked with notions of flexibility. After all, both sectors are aiming for a high level of user satisfaction, which, as studies in other countries have shown, can be provided by implementing spatial adaptability and flexibility.32
What are the obstacles to flexible housing? As illustrated in the preceding paragraphs, the notion of flexibility has been more prominent over recent years despite the small number of executed projects. Public bodies, private developers and users alike have raised the profile of flexible housing considerably. In order to achieve a more extensive implementation of the principles of flexible housing, the advantages of which are beginning to become widely acknowledged, the UK housing market as well as UK housing policy need to further advance investment into housing, the influence of existing regulation and policy on building standards and spatial principles needs to be reconsidered, and everyone involved in the process of construction, design, and use has to work together to achieve the best possible results. Some of the obstacle to be overcome address issues that are typically associated with levels of disinvestment or funding, lack of knowledge, lack of collaboration, and a resistance towards change. Investment The lack of resources and the preconception that in-built flexibility costs more money are generally conceived as a hindrance to achieving flexible housing. On the one hand, investment levels into housing in general have been low and, according to the National Housing Federation, will remain on a very low level should the newly elected Labour government not dramatically change direction since the publication of their election manifesto, which promised an increase to the annual supply of new social or affordable housing of an additional 10,000 per year. A figure
32
N. E. Altas, Oezsoy, A., 'Spatial adaptability and flexibility as parameters of user satisfaction for quality housing', Building and Environment, 5 (1998), 315-24.
13
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING that falls 75,000 units short of estimates by the National Housing Federation and the government's own inquiry, the Barker Review.33 On the other hand, house builders by and large argue that flexibility adds build cost and therefore is not interesting for them, because there is no evidence that the added cost can be transferred onto the finished product and thereby onto the customer. Whilst levels of investment are low — which is something that will have to be tackled before long — the acknowledgement of whole life costing and its wider employment in particular in the public sector, indicates that advances are being made towards a more sustainable overall approach, which has already started to incorporate some of the elements of flexible housing as discussed within this paper. The latter statement, however, disturbingly contrasts the fact that very little research is conducted in the private sector if at all and change towards a flexible approach — at the moment at least — has to be initiated through consumer demand. Legislation Some of the produced regulations, essential and recommended space standards are counterproductive to achieving flexibility in use. Determining a standard minimum width for any room determines a fixed configuration of furniture as much as use. Why, one could ask, is there still something such as a specification of standards of space by reference to individual rooms with specific labels, which tends to assume a conventional arrangement of the dwelling and the particular way in which a given room will be used, when already in 1961 the Parker Morris Report found this to be inhibiting flexibility "both in the initial design and in the subsequent use of a dwelling."34 Construction Techniques Whilst opinions differ immensely as to which constructional system best supports the notion of flexibility, the concept of a clear span space without any load bearing elements, which in relation to housing has been in use elsewhere for decades, seems to be a common denominator. In order to realize true flexibility within this clear span space (for walls or partitions to be moved at will), which principally is a shell that can
33
National Housing Federation, Housing must remain a priority for the next government (London: National Housing Federation, 2004), 1-4 (p. 1).
34
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, pp. 3-4.
14
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING be filled-in with any combination of spaces, adaptable to different occupants and uses, some argue that office techniques such as the 'intelligent floor' — sockets and other service run in floor or in floor ducts — have to be employed.35 Although an ever larger group of architects experiments with new construction techniques and prefabrication, this research needs to be linked stronger with spatial issues. Housing Market The main problems of the British housing market and system of provision, in particular the speculative house building industry, are the split between provision and maintenance of housing and the government's insistence in a housing shortage (investment value is paramount). Land is banked by developers and then released in small chunks so that demand always exceeds supply, this means that innovation or the incentive to be different is hardly ever there. At the moment still, almost anything sells, so it is easiest to stick to the status quo. If developers had to sell, they would have to be innovative. Whilst this situation is most likely not to change in the short term, consumers need to lobby harder to get a product which can satisfy their needs for a longer period. The current increases of property values are most likely not to continue on the same level and there are also signs of slower economic growth. This will also affect the overheated property market and might change the consumer's interest from housing satisfying a short term demand to providing accommodation for a longer period. Culture Although the notion of 'lifestyle' or more generally how we live has always been one of the most important issues — everyone spends a considerable amount of time within their homes — there is a general problem of communication when it comes to discussing notions of space and the changeability of spaces over time (most people simply realise that it can be done). Too often, this is reduced to the issues of Lifetime Homes, without incorporating the bigger picture. Lack of Interest and Initiative The greatest force against more considerate and thoughtful design of housing, which will not only serve one but several generations, is a lethargy towards change, which is 35
Jeremy Till expands upon the how of flexibility in his paper 'Flexible Housing : The Means to the End', to be presented in the workshop 'Physical Aspects of Design and Regeneration'.
15
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING typically a combination of the idea that there isn't really much need for flexibility coupled with the idea that it costs money. Whilst some argue that design costs are higher when researching innovative buildings and that the house building industry does not want to put money into this process, applying a set of simple principles through which inflexibility can be designed-out doesn't have to cost more.
Conclusion This paper has argued that the adoption of flexible housing addresses beneficially issues of finance — the idea that flexibility is more economic in the long term, participation — the way that flexible housing encourages user involvement in the design process, sustainability — the way that flexible housing is both socially, environmentally and economically sustainable, technology — the way that flexible housing exploits, or is determined by, advances in construction technology, and use — the way that flexible housing adapts to different usage over time. With an approach to flexibility as broad as this, the multitude of methods for achieving flexibility is large and as Jeremy Till's paper will suggest it can be achieved through anything from "wholesale change down to quite discreet, but potentially extremely useful alterations."36 None of these issues can be afforded to be overlooked by anybody — neither by architects, housing developers, providers and most of all users — and despite the long list of lost opportunities and present obstacles, much has already been done to challenge existing conditions and much can be done to heave the issue of flexibility into the wider public domaine. Some of the obstacles are being discussed already and in particular the public sector seems to be the pioneering force on issues such as whole life costing and implementation of sustainability. When reconsidering flexibility in housing today, we as planners or architects but also as users have an enormous responsibility as much as a significant opportunity in addressing but also reassessing the act of dwelling. This should not lead to a discussion merely about space standards, but about long term visions and their implementation through discussions with all those involved in the process. Flexibility, as detailed in Jeremy Till's paper, should not be confused with complicated technical solutions, which often ignore simpler spatial alternatives, but should be seen as a part 36
Jeremy Till, 'Flexible Housing : The Means to the End', paper to be presented at the ENHR International Conference Housing in Europe: New Challenges and Innovations in Tomorrow's Cities, Reykjavik, 29 June - 3 July 2005.
16
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING of a wider sustainable discussion. Although Building for Life, an initiative by CABE, recently acknowledged adaptability as one parameter of sustainability on a micro scale37, flexibility has to be accepted as a precondition of sustainability. Maintenance and upgrading of buildings, fast evolving technology and environmental standards can only be implemented in existing housing stock when there is provision for changes to be accommodated. The capability to adapt to change or accommodate change is a basic and fundamental premise for the future of society, which is to do with buildings having a long term future, being capable of modification, for changing aspirations as well as needs. The notion of flexibility has to be paramount and the right tools, how to achieve this flexibility, have to provided through intensive research in order to ensure that this responsibility and opportunity can be met.
REFERENCES ALTAS, N.E. & ÖZSOY, A., 'Spatial Adaptability and Flexibility as Parameters of User Satisfaction for Quality Housing', Building and Environment, 5 (1998), 315-323 ARCHITECTURAL FORUM, 'The new house 194X ...' Architectural Forum, 9 (1942), 65-152 BARKER, K., Review of Housing Supply. Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2004) BEISI, J., 'Adaptable Housing or Adaptable People?', Architecture et comportement / Architecture and Behaviour, 11 (1995), 139-62 BLACKMAN, D., 'Building Futures. Housing', Building Futures. A Building Design Supplement for CABE and RIBA (2003) BRE, 'Whole Life Costing' [accessed 4 May 2005] CABE, Building for Life Newsletter 01 : Sustainability (London: CABE, 2004) CABE & RIBA, Housing Futures 2024 : A Provocative Look at Future Trends in Housing (Building Futures, 2004) CHRISTIANSEN, J. H., 'Fleksible boliger [Flexible housing]', Arkitekten (Copenhagen), 18 (1988), A484-A90 COUNCIL OF MORTGAGE LENDERS [accessed 3 May 2005] DESIGN COUNCIL, Competitive Advantage through Design (London: Design Council, March 2002) 37
CABE, Building for Life Newsletter 01 : Sustainability (London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2004), p. 2.
17
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF FLEXIBLE HOUSING FRENCH, H. (ed.), Accommodating Change : Innovation in Housing (London: Architecture Foundation, 2002) FROYEN, H.-P., 'A review of 3 projects: Wohen Morgen in Hollabrunn, architects Ottokar Uhl and Jos P Weber; support-infill project for tenants in Vienna, architect Ottokar Uhl; and an examination of existing mass housing as support.' Openhouse, 4 (1977), 21-29 FORTY, A., Words and Buildings. A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000) GROÁK, S., 'The Idea of Building. Thought and action in the design and production of buildings' (London, Glasgow, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras: Spon, 1992) HENZ, A. & HENZ, H., 'Anpassbare Wohnungen' (Zürich: ETH Wohnforum, 1997) HOUSING CORPORATION [accessed 5 May 2005] HOUSING CORPORATION, Scheme Development Standards (5th ed.) (London: Housing Corporation, 2003) JOSEPH ROWNTREE FOUNDATION, 'Lifetime Homes', Joseph Rowntree Foundation [accessed: 28 April 2005] LEVITT, D., 'What type of home? sustainable housing requires buildings to be adaptable', AXIS -LONDON- ROOM-, 6 (2000), 12-13 LUDWIG, M., Mobile Architektur : Geschichte und Enwicklung transportabler und modularer Bauten (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt GmbH, 1998) MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Homes for today & tomorrow (London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961) NATIONAL HOUSING FEDERATION, 'News Release : Housing must remain a priority for the next government' (London: National Housing Federation, 2005) RABENECK, A., SHEPPARD, D. & TOWN, P., 'Housing Flexibility?', AD, 11 (1973), 698-727 RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION, 20 Steps to encourage the use of Whole Life Costing (London: The Housing Forum, 2002) TAYLOR, M., 'User needs or exploiter needs', AD, 11 (1973), 728-732 WAGNER, M., Das wachsende Haus (Berlin: Bong, 1932)
18
